Comparison between Unilateral and Bilateral Ovarian Drilling in Clomiphene Citrate Resistance Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy

Ovarian Reserve and Hormone Alteration Following Laparoscopic Ovarian Drilling for Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome: A Systematic Review

We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the data in the literature on ovarian reserve and ovarian hormone following laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD). The PubMed, ScienceDirect, and ProQuest databases were comprehensively searched using a combination of keywords such as "ovarian reserve", "laparoscopic ovarian drilling", "luteinizing hormone", "follicle-stimulating hormone", "inhibin", "LH/FSH ratio", "ovulation", and "testosterone". All studies involving females of reproductive age who were officially diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) and had undergone LOD with reported data concerning at least one of the following parameters were considered for inclusion: ovarian reserve, anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH), inhibin, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), LH/FSH ratio, and testosterone. All the included studies were evaluated by the GRADE scale for bias and their findings were synthesized by four independent coauthors. A total of 38 studies involving 3118 female patients were included. Based on our findings, a significant number of participants experienced spontaneous ovulation along with a significant decrease in ovarian reserve, and a significant decrease in AMH, LH, and testosterone, with no significant changes in FSH and inhibin B. With the end goal of LOD being to improve fertility and pregnancy rates among females with PCOS, it is important to look at the first few steps that enable this. As expected, there was a significant improvement in ovulation while the ovarian reserve decreased. Along with the decrease in ovarian reserve, there was a significant normalization in AMH, LH, and testosterone levels. LOD may exert its main effects through the manipulation of the ovarian reserves.

Ovulation induction techniques in women with polycystic ovary syndrome

Anovulation is very common and has several different clinical manifestations, including amenorrhea, oligomenorrhea and abnormal uterine bleeding. Various mechanisms can cause anovulation. The clinical consequences and commonest chronic anovulatory disorder, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), has a prevalence that ranges between 6 to 10% of the global population. While multiple causes can eventually result in PCOS, various methods have been described in the literature for its management, often without ascertaining the underlying cause. Ovulation Induction (OI) is a group of techniques that is used in women with PCOS who are looking to conceive and are unbale to do so with natural means. This narrative review presents a summary of the current evidence and available techniques for OI in women with PCOS, highlighting their performance and applicability.

Metformin With or Without Clomiphene Citrate Versus Laparoscopic Ovarian Drilling With or Without Clomiphene Citrate to Treat Patients With Clomiphene Citrate-Resistant Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Which is optimal to treat clomiphene citrate-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome (CCR-PCOS) with LOD or metformin remains a problem. There are three inconsistent or even contradictory views.

Objectives: The present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Metformin with or without CC and to compare them with LOD with or without CC (Met/Met-CC vs. LOD/LOD-CC) in women with CCR-PCOS who also have anovulation.

Data source: The PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched to identify relevant studies reported between 1 Jan 1966 and 31 Aug 2019; the search was updated on 17 May 2022.

Study eligibility criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CCR-PCOS that had considered Met/Met-CC and LOD/LOD-CC as the exposure variables and fertility as the main outcome variable.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods: We assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The primary effectiveness outcome was live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate and the primary safety outcome was miscarriage rate. A fixed-effect meta-analysis was performed. The robustness of the results was assessed using sensitivity analyses. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were performed to examine the reasons for heterogeneity. Publication bias was examined using the funnel plot, Egger linear regression, and Begg rank correlation tests. The quality of this meta-analysis was estimated according to the GRADE approach. This meta-analysis has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021240156).

Results: Among 71 potentially relevant studies, we included five RCTs in our meta-analysis. We found no difference in effectiveness between Met-CC and LOD in terms of live birth/ongoing pregnancy (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.87–1.21, z = 0.28; p = 0.780), and miscarriage rates (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.46–1.36, z = 0.86; p = 0.390). I2 tests results revealed moderate or no heterogeneity (I2 = 51.4%, p = 0.083; I2= 0.0%; p = 0.952). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. Funnel plot, Egger linear regression, and Begg rank correlation tests implied no publication bias (p > 0.05). LOD was more expensive than Met (€1050 vs. €50.16). The evidence quality was moderate.

Conclusion: There is no evidence on the difference in the outcomes between the two interventions regarding ovulation, pregnancy, and live birth. As LOD is an invasive procedure and carries inherent risks, the use of Met/Met-CC should be the second-line treatment for women with CCR-PCOS.

Systematic Review Registration: identifier CRD42021240156.

Association between baseline LH/FSH and live-birth rate after fresh-embryo transfer in polycystic ovary syndrome women

This study aimed to retrospectively analyse the effect of the baseline luteinising hormone/follicle-stimulating hormone ratio (bLH/FSH) on the live-birth rate per fresh-embryo transfer cycle (LBR/ET) in infertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who received a fresh-embryo transfer. A total of 424 patients with PCOS who underwent the first cycle of in vitro fertilisation (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) fresh-embryo transfer at our hospital was enrolled. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, along with curve fitting and a threshold effect analysis, were performed. Baseline LH/FSH levels were a significant (P < 0.05) independent risk factor affecting live birth. In the first IVF/ICSI antagonist treatment cycles, LBR/ET after fresh-embryo transfer was relatively flat, until bLH/FSH was 1.0; thereafter, it started to decrease by 17% for every 0.1-unit bLH/FSH increase. Considering the decline in LBR/ET, it is recommended that PCOS women with bLH/FSH > 1.0 carefully consider fresh-embryo transfer during their first IVF/ICSI.

Laparoscopic ovarian drilling for ovulation induction in women with anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common condition affecting 8% to 13% of reproductive-aged women. In the past clomiphene citrate (CC) used to be the first-line treatment in women with PCOS. Ovulation induction with letrozole should be the first-line treatment according to new guidelines, but the use of letrozole is off-label. Consequently, CC is still commonly used. Approximately 20% of women on CC do not ovulate. Women who are CC-resistant can be treated with gonadotrophins or other medical ovulation-induction agents. These medications are not always successful, can be time-consuming and can cause adverse events like multiple pregnancies and cycle cancellation due to an excessive response. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) is a surgical alternative to medical treatment. There are risks associated with surgery, such as complications from anaesthesia, infection, and adhesions.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of LOD with or without medical ovulation induction compared with medical ovulation induction alone for women with anovulatory polycystic PCOS and CC-resistance.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two trials registers up to 8 October 2019, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with anovulatory PCOS and CC resistance who underwent LOD with or without medical ovulation induction versus medical ovulation induction alone, LOD with assisted reproductive technologies (ART) versus ART, LOD with second-look laparoscopy versus expectant management, or different techniques of LOD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, extracted data and evaluated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE method. The primary effectiveness outcome was live birth and the primary safety outcome was multiple pregnancy. Pregnancy, miscarriage, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), ovulation, costs, and quality of life were secondary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes 38 trials (3326 women). The evidence was very low- to moderate-quality; the main limitations were due to poor reporting of study methods, with downgrading for risks of bias (randomisation and allocation concealment) and lack of blinding. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling with or without medical ovulation induction versus medical ovulation induction alone Pooled results suggest LOD may decrease live birth slightly when compared with medical ovulation induction alone (odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.92; 9 studies, 1015 women; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). The evidence suggest that if the chance of live birth following medical ovulation induction alone is 42%, the chance following LOD would be between 28% and 40%. The sensitivity analysis restricted to only RCTs with low risk of selection bias suggested there is uncertainty whether there is a difference between the treatments (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36; 4 studies, 415 women; I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). LOD probably reduces multiple pregnancy rates (Peto OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.66; 14 studies, 1161 women; I² = 2%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if we assume the risk of multiple pregnancy following medical ovulation induction is 5.0%, the risk following LOD would be between 0.9% and 3.4%. Restricting to RCTs that followed women for six months after LOD and six cycles of ovulation induction only, the results for live birth were consistent with the main analysis. There may be little or no difference between the treatments for the likelihood of a clinical pregnancy (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.03; 21 studies, 2016 women; I² = 19%; low-quality evidence). There is uncertainty about the effect of LOD compared with ovulation induction alone on miscarriage (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.59; 19 studies, 1909 women; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). OHSS was a very rare event. LOD may reduce OHSS (Peto OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.91; 8 studies, 722 women; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Unilateral LOD versus bilateral LOD Due to the small sample size, the quality of evidence is insufficient to justify a conclusion on live birth (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.78; 1 study, 44 women; very low-quality evidence). There were no data available on multiple pregnancy. The likelihood of a clinical pregnancy is uncertain between the treatments, due to the quality of the evidence and the large heterogeneity between the studies (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84; 7 studies, 470 women; I² = 60%, very low-quality evidence). Due to the small sample size, the quality of evidence is not sufficient to justify a conclusion on miscarriage (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.33; 2 studies, 131 women; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Other comparisons Due to lack of evidence and very low-quality data there is uncertainty whether there is a difference for any of the following comparisons: LOD with IVF versus IVF, LOD with second-look laparoscopy versus expectant management, monopolar versus bipolar LOD, and adjusted thermal dose versus fixed thermal dose.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic ovarian drilling with and without medical ovulation induction may decrease the live birth rate in women with anovulatory PCOS and CC resistance compared with medical ovulation induction alone. But the sensitivity analysis restricted to only RCTs at low risk of selection bias suggests there is uncertainty whether there is a difference between the treatments, due to uncertainty around the estimate. Moderate-quality evidence shows that LOD probably reduces the number of multiple pregnancy. Low-quality evidence suggests that there may be little or no difference between the treatments for the likelihood of a clinical pregnancy, and there is uncertainty about the effect of LOD compared with ovulation induction alone on miscarriage. LOD may result in less OHSS. The quality of evidence is insufficient to justify a conclusion on live birth, clinical pregnancy or miscarriage rate for the analysis of unilateral LOD versus bilateral LOD. There were no data available on multiple pregnancy.

The Prevalence of Incidental Endometriosis in Women Undergoing Laparoscopic Ovarian Drilling for Clomiphene-Resistant Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Retrospective Cohort Study and Meta-Analysis

To evaluate the incidence of endometriosis in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) patients who did not present with any endometriosis symptoms and underwent laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) for clomiphene citrate (CC) resistance, 225 and 630 women with CC-resistant PCOS without classic endometriosis symptoms were included in a retrospective study and a meta-analysis, respectively. All women underwent LOD. The main outcome parameter was the prevalence of incidental endometriosis. Laparoscopy revealed endometriosis in 38/225 (16.9%) women (revised American Fertility Society (rAFS) stage I: 33/38, 86.8%; rAFS stage II: 5/38, 13.2%). When women with CC-resistant PCOS without endometriosis were compared, lower body mass index (BMI) and lower 25-hydroxy-vitamin D levels were associated with the presence of endometriosis at laparoscopy (odds ratios (OR): 0.872, 95% confidence intervals (95%CI): 0.792-0.960; p = 0.005 and OR: 0.980, 95%CI: 0.962-0.999; p = 0.036; respectively). The inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis were fulfilled by 4/230 reports about LOD. After correction for study heterogeneity, the pooled prevalence of incidental endometriosis was 7.7% in women with CC-resistant PCOS. In conclusion, the rate of incidental endometriosis in women with CC-resistant PCOS might reflect the prevalence of asymptomatic endometriosis. All cases were affected by minimal or mild disease. Since the literature lacks reports on associated clinical outcomes, the relevance of this entity in such patients should be the subject of further studies.

Ovarian surgery for symptom relief in women with polycystic ovary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common endocrine condition, affecting approximately one in 10 women. PCOS is defined by two of three features: oligo- or anovulation, clinical or biochemical hyperandrogenism or both, or polycystic ovaries.Women with PCOS can have a wide range of health problems, including infrequent and irregular periods, unwanted hair growth and acne, and subnormal fertility. Long-term health concerns include an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes and the development of precancerous disease of the womb.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and harms of ovarian surgery as a treatment for symptomatic relief of hirsutism, acne and menstrual irregularity in PCOS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group specialized register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO (from inception to 17 October 2016). We handsearched citation lists, registers of ongoing trials and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of women undergoing ovarian drilling in comparison to no treatment, medical treatment, or other forms of surgical treatment for the symptoms of PCOS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary outcome measures were improvement in menstrual regularity and androgenic symptoms of PCOS (hirsutism, acne); the secondary outcome measures included harms, change of body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, androgen levels, metabolic measures and quality of life. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 RCTs (2278 women analyzed) of participants with PCOS and symptoms of acne, hirsutism or irregular menstrual cycles, all of which included laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) as an intervention.Two studies reported their funding source (Farquhar 2002 - supported in part by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation; Sarouri 2015 - the authors thank the Vice Chancellor for Research of Guilan University of Medical Sciences for funding this project).The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate quality. The main limitations were imprecision associated with the low number of studies, inconsistency and risk of bias associated with the inability to blind participants. There were too few studies to assess risk of publication bias. Menstrual RegularityTwo studies compared LOD versus metformin (n=226) but no conclusions could be drawn with regard to menstrual regularity, as their findings were inconsistent and they were unsuitable for pooling. There appeared to be little or no difference in the rate of women reporting improvement in menstrual regularity when LOD was compared with medical treatment including metformin + clomiphene (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.64, 2 studies, 332 women, I² = 13%, low-quality evidence), letrozole (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.84, 1 study, 260 women, low-quality evidence), or metformin + letrozole (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.81, 1 study, 146 women, low-quality evidence). However, one study reported that LOD was superior to gonadotrophin (OR 19.2, 95% CI 3.17 to 116.45, 1 study, 35 women, very low-quality evidence).There appeared to be little or no difference in the rate of women reporting improvement in menstrual regularity when bilateral unipolar LOD was compared to unilateral LOD (OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.71, 2 studies, 104 women, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence), transvaginal ultrasound-guided LOD (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.37, 1 study, 147 women, low-quality evidence), LOD using adjusted thermal dose in accordance with the ovarian volume (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.14, 1 study, 115 women, low-quality evidence) or bipolar LOD (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.05 to 18.57, 1 study, 18 women, low-quality evidence).Four to five punctures per ovary may improve the rate of women reporting menstrual regularity compared with two or fewer (OR 16.04, 95% CI 4.19 to 61.34, 2 studies, 73 women, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). Androgenic SymptomsThere was probably little or no difference in improvement in androgenic symptoms when LOD was compared to metformin (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.37, 1 study, 126 women, moderate-quality evidence) or gonadotrophins; acne (OR 3.20, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.94, 1 study, 25 women, low-quality evidence), hirsutism (OR 2.31, 95% CI 0.22 to 23.89, 1 study, 25 women, low-quality evidence).There appeared to be little or no difference in improvement of androgenic symptoms when LOD was compared to transvaginal ultrasound-guided LOD, with respect to hirsutism (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.91, 1 study, 39 women, low-quality evidence) or acne (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.50, 1 study, 31 women, low-quality evidence). HarmsLOD was associated with fewer gastrointestinal side effects than metformin plus clomiphene (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.36, 2 studies, 332 women, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). One study suggested little or no difference in rates of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome between LOD and gonadotrophins (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.61, 1 study, 33 women, low-quality evidence).There were fewer adhesions with transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy compared to LOD (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.18, 1 study, 246 women, moderate-quality evidence). There appeared to be little or no difference in adhesions when variable energy LOD was compared with standard LOD (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.88, 1 study, 64 women, low-quality evidence). Another study (44 women) reported that none of the women who returned for surgery following either traditional or unilateral LOD were found to have adhesions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no clear evidence that LOD improves menstrual regularity or the androgenic symptoms of PCOS, compared to most of the medical treatments used in the included studies. LOD was associated with fewer gastrointestinal side effects compared to metformin and clomiphene.There was also no clear evidence of different effectiveness between types of LOD, except that LOD with four to five punctures per ovary may be more effective than two or fewer punctures. There was little evidence comparing LOD with different types of surgery, although one study concluded that transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy had a lower risk of adhesions than LOD.There was evidence from one small study of benefit from LOD compared to gonadotrophins for menstrual regulation. However, gonadotrophins are seldom used for this indication.

Unilateral Versus Bilateral Laparoscopic Ovarian Drilling Using Thermal Dose Adjusted According to Ovarian Volume in CC-Resistant PCOS, A Randomized Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of unilateral laparoscopic ovarian drilling versus bilateral laparoscopic ovarian drilling with thermal dose adjusted according to ovarian volume in clomiphene citrate (CC)-resistant PCOS patients in terms of endocrine changes, menstrual cycle resumption, ovulation and pregnancy rates.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Zagazig university hospitals. One hundred CC-resistant PCOS patients were divided into two groups. Group (I) (50 patients) underwent unilateral laparoscopic ovarian drilling with thermal dose adjusted according to ovarian volume (60 J/cm3 of ovarian tissue), and group (II) (50 patients) underwent bilateral laparoscopic ovarian drilling using the same previously mentioned thermal dose. Endocrinal changes and menstrual cycle resumption were assessed within 8 weeks postoperatively, but the ovulation and pregnancy rates were estimated after 6-month follow-up period.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups as regards demographic data (p > 0.05). As regards menstruation cycle resumption (62.5 vs. 81%) (p = 0.047), total ovulation rate (54.2 vs. 78.7%) (p = 0.011) and cumulative pregnancy rate (33.3 vs. 55.3%) (p = 0.031), there was statistically significant difference between both groups. After drilling, there were highly statistically significant decrease in the mean serum levels of luteinizing hormone (LH) and significant decrease in the mean serum levels of testosterone in both groups. Mean serum level of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) did not change significantly in both groups after drilling.

CONCLUSION

Bilateral laparoscopic ovarian drilling with thermal dose adjusted according to ovarian volume is more effective than the right-sided unilateral technique with thermal dose adjusted according to ovarian volume in terms of menstrual cycle resumption, ovulation and cumulative pregnancy rates in CC-resistant PCOS patients.

Effects of letrozole in combination with low-dose intramuscular injection of human menopausal gonadotropin on ovulation and pregnancy of 156 patients with polycystic ovary syndrome

Objective:

To explore the effects of letrozole (LE) in combination with low-dose intramuscular injection of human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG) on the ovulation induction and pregnancy of patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

Methods:

A total of 156 patients with PCOS infertility were randomly divided into an LE group, a clomiphene citrate (CC) group and an LE + HMG group (n= 52). LE and CC were orally taken according to the prescribed dosage on the 3rd-5th days of menstruation respectively, and 75 IU HMG was given through intramuscular injection. The ovulation induction parameters and pregnancy outcomes were observed.

Results:

The number of ovulation cycle of LE + HMG group was significantly higher than that of LE group (χ²=8.451, P<0.001). After injection of human chorionic gonadotropin, both endometrial thickness and number of mature follicles of LE + HMG group were significantly higher than those of other two groups (P<0.001), and the daily estradiol (E2) level was also higher (q=4.531, P<0.05). The pregnancy rate of LE + HMG group was 55.7%, which exceeded those of other two groups (compared to LE group, χ²=4.012, P<0.05). In LE + HMG group, the average medication cycle of clinically pregnant patients was (2.9 ± 0.3) weeks, which was significantly shorter than those of CC and LE groups (F=17.241, P<0.001).

Conclusion:

The regimen using LE in combination with low-dose intramuscular injection of HMG has satisfactory therapeutic effects on ovulation induction, short medication cycle and high clinical pregnancy rate, which is promising for treating patients with PCOS infertility.

Primum Non Nocere

Surgical ovarian wedge resection was the first established treatment for women with anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) but was largely abandoned both due to the risk of postsurgical adhesions and the introduction of medical ovulation induction. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) is an alternative method to induce ovulation in PCOS patients with clomiphene citrate resistance instead of gonadotropins. Surgical therapy with LOD may avoid or reduce the need for gonadotropins or may facilitate their use. However, the procedure, though effective, can be traumatic on the ovaries, which may cause postoperative adhesions and/or diminished ovarian reserve. In over-enthusiastic hands, this day-care procedure might lead to iatrogenic premature ovarian failure in young women. Some trials have compared LOD with gonadotropins, but, because of variations in study design and small sample size, the results are inconsistent and definitive conclusions about the relative efficacy of LOD and gonadotropins cannot be extracted from the individual studies. Today, evidence-based reviews conclude that there is no evidence of a significant difference in rates of clinical pregnancy, live birth or miscarriage in women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS undergoing LOD compared to other medical treatments. The reduction in multiple pregnancy rates in women undergoing LOD is the only pro-LOD argument. However, there are ongoing serious concerns about the long-term effects of LOD on ovarian function.